Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Twenty First century Power Plant Manufacturers

A. Skoda looks promising.

B. There's Nukem Energy, but based in Germany.

C. Would have been a candidate for either ordnance, or fusion weapon systems.

D. Rosatom, though at this moment I have doubts on it's continued existence that far into the future.

E. On the other hand, might still be building fission reactors.

F. On the subject of fission reactors, I still have no clue as to cost, consumption, and endurance of it's fuel.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Fission Reactors

1. If anyone took notice, they would observe that direct cost of power production defaults at for the first three power plant types were fifty kilostarbux per power point.

2. Difference is energy density, and supposedly fuel consumption.

3. Chemical variant drinks fuel like a drunken sailor.

4. Fusion reactors like teetotallers.

5. Which leaves us with fission reactors, where we're told nothing.

6. Or, if the assumption is they have the same consumption like fusion reactors, flies in the face of real life experience.

7. Other power plants require fuel tankage equal to 10% of their size (rounding up, minimum 1 ton) per month of operation. This provides enough fuel for the power plant for a month (four weeks).

8. Only exception noted was the chemical variant.

9. Our assumption being that you could fuel fission reactors for the next twenty or fifty years.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Fission Reactors

A. At technological level eight, the very advanced/size reduction upgrade produces ten power points, and costs a semimegastarbux per tonne, the same as an early fusion reactor.

B. In theory, the difference would be fuel cost and consumption.

C. Possibly, sensor detection.

D. At technological level nine, the high technology/size reduction version produces 11.42857142857143 power points, and costs three fifths megastarbux per tonne.

E. The equivalent early fusion reactor advanced/size reduction would be 11.11111111111111 power points, and costs eleven twentieths of a megastarbux.

F. It's pretty close, choice would likely depend on fuel and perhaps the preference for older technology.

 

[Subzero001]

Tech of real world (tech lvl 7-8)

and if we combined it with a second tech we can double or more the energy output for the fuel used. (magnets-electricity and heating up closed loop water to power turbines/generators for electricity)

 

[Condottiere]

I don't think we have boilers on spacecraft, except for the showers.

 

[Subzero001]

I don't think we have boilers on spacecraft, except for the showers.

Sonic showers and vacuum/recycle toilets...

 

[Condottiere]

I wouldn't process all the unrefined water into liquid hydrogen.

That does raise an interesting question, whether you can unrefine the hydrogen.

 

[Subzero001]

Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives and Customization

1. Speaking of making sense.

2. A component may have either Advantages or Disadvantages but not both.

3. Laudable, but you need room for exceptions.

4. Orbital Range: This manoeuvre drive only functions when the ship is within Short range (up to 1,250 kilometres) of a planetary body. Orbital range requires two Disadvantages.

5. That would condemn it to being eternally early prototype.

6. I'd allow two advantages are default level nine.

7. Possibly up to five advantages, at high technology, with a maximum of three iterations of any particular advantage.

8. At technological level eight prototype, one advantage to even out the issue.

early prototype has 2 disadvantages and prototype has 1 disadvantage per RAW. Per your rewrite prototype would be nutural, and you can apply advantages? I thought the max was 3 per RAW so you upped that by two as well? I can see a unit having disavantages and advantages for example a used 200dton jump drive with stealth installed in a 100dton ship would in my eyes have the disavantage of being bigger than normal and the advantage of stealth.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Realistically, I don't expect a change in the current rules set this edition.

2. There are two, or three reasons, this started really interesting me.

3. Confinement to planetary orbit would make this a nifty way to design ground attack spacecraft.

4. As an add on to give lift to spacecraft, especially if the manoeuvre drive is factor one, in a Terran standard plus gravity well.

5. Five advantages would allow seventy five percent energy efficiency, basically you divide power input by four.

6. And you could half the volume, not an inconsiderably saving.

7. In terms of stealth, I tend to view that less energy input in any particular spacecraft component, the less likely someone would detect that.

8. Similar argument could be made for limited range, with an accumulated four advantages.

9. It would give a reason to design spacecraft around these restricted modes of movement, compromising range with supposedly lower operating costs.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

1. So, how complex is designing and building a spacecraft hull?

2. Could easily cost as much as the onboard jump drive.

3. You could have Volkswagen mass produce the more popular sizes.

4. I guess they'd have to locate an Original Design Manufacturer, if they outsource the layout as well.

5. Or contract it out as a limited run, if they design the deckplans inhouse.

6. If they had had to design and build themselves, problems might be identified faster and solved quicker.

7. I think it depends on how many, and how many varieties, of these sized hulls they would construct.

8. The sweetspot might be less than it's worth mass producing.

9. And more than it's worth subcontracting to a specialized constructor, so it's worth setting up and funding a separate division.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

A. Hull configuration, if a planetary landing is planned, would be streamlined.

B. Possibly, heat shielded.

C. Which would also allow the starship to descend to Earth.

D. Which, I think, would make repairs and maintenance easier to carry out in standard gravity and usual atmospheric gas mixture.

E. Compared to weightlessness and bulky spacesuits.

F. Also, I assume the supply chain would be more terrestrial.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

G.

H. Which begs the question, how many hulls are we going to need in this five year period?

I. Keeping the name Venture isn't an issue, since subsequent hulls would get the name plus a serial number.

J. Or letter, honouring Star Trek.

K. Though I would think move fast and break things would be the motto of a destroyer flotilla.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

L. I'd modularize the hull, to ease maintenance and customization.

M. In our case, the important bit(s), are somewhat permanent fixtures.

N. This tonnage cannot include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

O. Major refits cover changes in power plant, manoeuvre or jump drive, as well as changes to spinal mounts or launch facilities (such as launch tubes). Removing these components costs 0.5 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.5 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one quarter of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

P. Exceptionally, detachable bridge.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

Q. Since the prototype has a price tag of fifty four megastarbux, removing one from a hull is going to cost twenty seven megastarbux.

R. Installation would be fifty four plus another twenty seven megastarbux.

S. Seems cheaper to let it stay in there and try to repair it in situ.

T. Or install a new unit in a new hull.

U. Maybe use reactionary rockets initially to keep costs down.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Structure and One Hundred Twenty Tonne Custom Hull

V. If you made large detachable bridge large enough, you could place engineering onboard that.

W. If that includes the manoeuvre drive, it's going to be going along a lot faster than factor zero.

X. In fact, you'd have two manoeuvre drives.

Y. Though at technological level eight, the factor zero manoeuvre drive would be also a prototype.

Z. And cost six times default.

 

[Condottiere]

XXSS-1 Venture

Hull
. technological level eight
. titanium steel
. unsealing
. one hundred twenty tonnes
..... six megastarbux
.. streamlined
..... seven and one fifth megastarbux
.. forty eight hull points
.. light hulled
... forty three and one fifth hull points
..... five and two fifths megastarbux
.. non gravitated
..... two and seven tenths megastarbux
. heat shielding
..... twelve megastarbux

...... fourteen and seven tenths megastarbux

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Structure and Artificial Gravity Tiles

1. I don't think it's mentioned when you can opt for gravitated hulls.

2. Though I would guess it's technological level nine, together with inertial compensation.

3. Or maybe, you off shoot inertial compensation from artificial gravity.

4. Or maybe artificial gravity is induced by reversing gravitational motors, entry technological level eight.

5. In either case, our entrepreneurial billionaire Melon Muskrat is a cheapskate.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Manoeuvre Drive

L. Minimizing risk (and cost) means you'd try to use proven technology for all other components.

M. Factor three reactionary rockets are available at technological level seven.

N. Budget/fuel inefficiency would be seven and one fifth tonnes, 1.08 megastarbux, eleven and quarter tonnes fuel usage per hour.

O. That's 13.08 megastarbux (with heat shields) for that particular type of propulsion.

P. As opposed to a factor one manoeuvre drive prototype, fourteen and two fifths megastarbux (and one and a half tonnes, twelve power points).

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Manoeuvre Drive

Q. Traveller says surface to orbit is ten kiloklix, and takes two kilosex at one gee.

R. In Terran terms, presumably means a thrust of two gees.

S. Two kilosex are thirty three minutes and twenty seconds, which is a tad under six turns.

T. Two gees are fourteen hundred and fourteen seconds.

U. That's twenty three and thirty four seconds, a tad under four turns.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Travel Calculations

1. Had a go at that with one and two gees.

2. I'm guessing you have to multiply the result by ten to get exact second count.

3. If it's just to get to ten kiloklix at full acceleration, I'm guessing you have to double the distance, and half the result.

4. Which means that one gee fourteen hundred and fourteen seconds.

5. And two gees, one kilosex.